Prosignia  +  380564 Sun, 17 Jun 07 06:00 AM Hello, I am wondering which prep is more idiomatic to follow dated: to or at? I have read such sentences as: The skull is dated at about 36,000 years old. But I also find such sentences as: we can date the skeleton to approximately 2500BC. So, to and at are interchangable in those cases? In addition, can I use "to be" in a sentence, for example, the skull is dated to be about 36,000 years old? Thanks in advance. Prosignia Joined on Fri, May 25 2007 New Member 30 Dates

	Mister Micawber  +  381075 Mon, 18 Jun 07 03:12 PM Not interchangeable, as you can see by your samples:  dated at + number of years; dated to + date.  I don't like the 'to be' form at all. Mister Micawber Joined on Wed, Aug 4 2004 Yokohama Veteran Member 30,802 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-- that's all.' Dates